[MichiganDriver]

[QUOTE=repete;500291]

Originally Posted by MichiganDriver

Rubbish. What's your idea of compromise? 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases?

QUOTE]

In this case YES!! Name one thing that we need to pump more money into and the amount. I bet we can then look around the rest of the bloated non-existent budget and find the funds to transfer. Problem solved!

Fox might be telling you that but it's horse puckey. Every economist out there says the same thing - it is simply not possible to achieve a balanced budget through spending cuts alone.

[repete]

[QUOTE=MichiganDriver;500294]

Originally Posted by repete

Fox might be telling you that but it's horse puckey. Every economist out there says the same thing - it is simply not possible to achieve a balanced budget through spending cuts alone.

Really ? Every one of them? Lets just forget about that little bit of word play and go right to the heart of the matter. Impossible to balance the budget thru spending cuts... think about that and repeat it a time or two. Perhaps you (and SO MANY others) just don't want to cut DEEP ENOUGH! STOP THE FREAKIN SPENDING would be a good start!

[MichiganDriver]

[QUOTE=repete;500311]

Originally Posted by MichiganDriver

Really ? Every one of them? Lets just forget about that little bit of word play and go right to the heart of the matter. Impossible to balance the budget thru spending cuts... think about that and repeat it a time or two. Perhaps you (and SO MANY others) just don't want to cut DEEP ENOUGH! STOP THE FREAKIN SPENDING would be a good start!

I suppose I could starting listing economists but instead, here's our spending.



The deficit is currently about $1.5T. It's projected to drop to $1.2T this year and they're projecting deficits of somewhere about $700B for years to come. Discretionary spending is $660B and if you click the link below you'll see that we can't just eliminate it (Veterans Affairs, The Justice Dept, Foreign Affairs etc are in this section) So what else do you want to cut? Defense? Social Security? Yeah, how about telling people that starting next month their Social Security check is going to be cut in half?

Usually when we reach the point where your Fox programming doesn't line up with reality you bow out of the conversation, so later dude. :thumbsup:

In case anyone would like to see what "Discretionary Spending" is, check out this site. Wow, great programming! (there's no 'back' button - anytime you need to go back to the previous view click on the grey part of the smaller pie chart)

What Is Non-Defense Discretionary Spending?

[Mr. Ford95]

Originally Posted by MichiganDriver

I'm not entirely sure (and I haven't looked into the links that Robert posted). I seem to recall Obama said that he was just getting started in the senate and what he did was wrong. That's right, iirc the man stood up and said he made a mistake. I could be wrong though.

I don't know how you're veering off into Dem+ this and Rep+ that (I'm getting the "+" thing) but it seems to me a 50/50 compromise would create a bill that both sides hate equally well and that would be about perfect.

Well, Obama voted against it in 2006, he had been in politics since 1997 so I'm sure he had an idea of whether it was good or not by then even though he had been in the US Senate since 2005. More than likely this is what happened, he was the NKOTB so he voted along party line's like a new guy should do. Hold the party line until you get some senority. In hindsight, he did what was right for his political future even if it wasn't the right thing to do looking back. The problem is it shows he's a hypocrit today, he voted against raising the ceiling but now wants it raised?

As for the + I was talking about, if they do an under the table tax increase while decreasing govt. spending, they appear to appease their fans on both sides which is a +. The talk is that they aren't going to do an outright tax increase and they are going to cut some govt. spending. Both sides appear to look good then.

[Mr. Ford95]

[QUOTE=MichiganDriver;500328]

Originally Posted by repete

I suppose I could starting listing economists but instead, here's our spending.



The deficit is currently about $1.5T. It's projected to drop to $1.2T this year and they're projecting deficits of somewhere about $700B for years to come. Discretionary spending is $660B and if you click the link below you'll see that we can't just eliminate it (Veterans Affairs, The Justice Dept, Foreign Affairs etc are in this section) So what else do you want to cut? Defense? Social Security? Yeah, how about telling people that starting next month their Social Security check is going to be cut in half?

Usually when we reach the point where your Fox programming doesn't line up with reality you bow out of the conversation, so later dude. :thumbsup:

In case anyone would like to see what "Discretionary Spending" is, check out this site. Wow, great programming! (there's no 'back' button - anytime you need to go back to the previous view click on the grey part of the smaller pie chart)

What Is Non-Defense Discretionary Spending?

Your using Wiki for this? I looked on the White House website and found our govt. spending since the 1940. Since Obama took office, working on 3 years now, he has already matched Bush's spending in 8 year's. What I saw was that the predictions on the WH site said spending would be 1.6 this year and 1.1 next year before dropping off, BUT that is dependent of several things happening.

It's a file you have to download to see, I used Microsoft Excel:http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s/hist01z3.xls

[MichiganDriver]

Sorry - I forgot to post a link. I got the pie chart from

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for explaining the +, I see what you mean now, easier for both parties to sell the compromise to their constituents that way.

Yeah I'm familiar with the spreadsheet view of the deficits (and I just looked at the one you posted). I do have one correction for you. 2009 was W's budget.

As far as Obama being a hypocrite, again, was it a slow news day on Fox? They didn't have anything substantive to charge the Prez with so attack him on a technicality? His situation changed and so his vote changed. Have you ever seen me go after W on some trifling little technicality? I don't have to because he was such a bad President. I get to talk about him getting confused and invading the wrong country. :lol:

[Mr. Ford95]

As far as Obama being a hypocrite, again, was it a slow news day on Fox? They didn't have anything substantive to charge the Prez with so attack him on a technicality? His situation changed and so his vote changed. Have you ever seen me go after W on some trifling little technicality? I don't have to because he was such a bad President. I get to talk about him getting confused and invading the wrong country.

Believe it or not, that did not come from Fox. That has come from the general public that is informed and in touch with our govt. Has Fox since picked up on it? I explained my thoughts on it.

More than likely this is what happened, he was the NKOTB so he voted along party line's like a new guy should do. Hold the party line until you get some senority. In hindsight, he did what was right for his political future even if it wasn't the right thing to do looking back

Still makes him a hypocrite even if that was why he voted against it then whether you want to call it a little technicality or not. If the Dems want to make mountains out of mole hills on Bush then it's fair game for Repubs to do the same on Obama.

Even though 2009 was W's, it makes Obama's look even worse if you call it 2 years instead of 3 then..........I'd take the 3 year and not say anything, the average looks a lot better.

[MichiganDriver]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ford95

Believe it or not, that did not come from Fox. That has come from the general public that is informed and in touch with our govt. Has Fox since picked up on it? I explained my thoughts on it. Still makes him a hypocrite even if that was why he voted against it then whether you want to call it a little technicality or not. If the Dems want to make mountains out of mole hills on Bush then it's fair game for Repubs to do the same on Obama.

Even though 2009 was W's, it makes Obama's look even worse if you call it 2 years instead of 3 then..........I'd take the 3 year and not say anything, the average looks a lot better.

You know what? I've just now made the decision to give up on you.

I've come to the full realization of how much you put political party before the truth. You might care about the truth, I'm not saying you don't, but political party is more important to you. Just to give you an inkling what I mean (hopefully without it coming out badly), you looked over that deficit data looking for something, anything that would redeem your political party in some way. I start with the data and try and discover who screwed our economy up. Btw, did you happen to notice the surpluses we had right before W took over? :thumbsup:

As for the hypocrite stuff, I don't care. Really, I'm just saying this to show you how frivolous an issue it is. Wasn't Ronald Reagan a Democrat at one time? Using your logic, he was being hypocritical every time he contradicted something he said earlier in his life. It does not matter. His situation changed and therefore his thinking changed. Or to put it another way, using your logic virtually every President that was once a congressman is also a hypocrite because at one time or another circumstances forced him to argue legislation from 2 different points of view. Let it go - it does not matter - but it pleases me that you're shooting blanks.

[repete]

I'm not bowing out, some time's I just get tired of beating my head agienst a wall. I didn't bother lookin at the link when I say we cut then we cut. Nothing is sacared and we start at the top with our leaders who should be leading and doing so by example then we move to the waste and fraud then corp. welfare, foriegn aid, ect

Your figures may be alittle off, after all you didn't get them from the RIGHT site!

[MichiganDriver]

Originally Posted by repete

I'm not bowing out, some time's I just get tired of beating my head agienst a wall. I didn't bother lookin at the link when I say we cut then we cut. Nothing is sacared and we start at the top with our leaders who should be leading and doing so by example then we move to the waste and fraud then corp. welfare, foriegn aid, ect

Your figures may be alittle off, after all you didn't get them from the RIGHT site!

I'm glad to see you're willing to discuss this. Not the RIGHT site? N/P, just post your own numbers and show me how you can balance the budget by spending cuts alone. $1.5T shouldn't be hard to do. :lol: I'm joking. The number I mentioned is $700B a year. Which slices of the pie get smaller and by how much?